The Constitution

I could go on for days about problems with the US educational system.

As to the teaching of the Constitution:

The Constitution is the backbone of ALL US law! So it is important for US citizens to have a basic grasp of the constitution.

Interestingly, when we speak of our "Constitutional Rights", we are actually referring to the first 14 amendments, also known as "The Bill of Rights".

As I recall, (it was a few years ago) my education went over parts of the constitution 4 times.
Grade school US history
High School US history
High School Government
College Government

I believe the primary reason that many US citizens can spout sections of the Constitution (Bill of Rights) is the amount of media coverage that some special interest groups get.

Further, parts of those rights are quoted almost daily in television law enforcement dramas.

Like many topics, the "average" US citizen doesn't know as much about the Constitution as they think they do.
If you were to give a Tech Republic style quiz on the Constitution, you would find very poor score for far too many US citizens.

Interestingly, the people that would score the highest on the quiz would be those citizens who were not born in the US, but applied for and received their citizenship as adults.

By the way, interesting choice of a topic to post on our Independence Day.

Chas

Us 'Limeys' don't have a Constitution...here in the UK we were never 'constituted'!

Generally, but not invariably, countries that have been around seemingly forever, like the UK for example, don't have 'written' constitutions as our laws and traditions go back for many hundreds of years and have gradually evolved over our long an chequered history. A country that is fairly 'new' in the scheme of things and especially one that has gained independence from a former ruler is more likely to havesuch a thing, as it forms an integral part of it's identity.

The US Constitution arose as part of the independence from Britain back in the 18th century, a mere 230 or so years ago. It states that 'this is who we are, this is what we do and thisis what we believe' and by setting it out in writing, the US are making the statement that 'we are no longer an outpost of the British Empire' but an independent nation and this is how we define ourselves.

By the way...my wife didn't celebrate, even though she's an American living over here in the UK...she was too busy dealing with her daughter's birthday. Like it says in the song, she was 'born on the 4th of July'! However, six of our engineers working for the US Army in Europe were given the day off! Sucks to be back 'home'in the office, huh?!!

"why does everyone feel that so much effort should be placed in learning their constitutional rights and little or no effort is placed in understanding the rest of the world?
Does this not feed the fire of global ignorance that leads to war?"

Why Oz, it's quite simple really. If you watch the news here much at all you will soon realize that we are evangelistic about our constitution and must keep it forward in our minds so that we can help free all of the world. It's really not for our benefit as much as it is to help others become free. Everyones freedom worldwide relies on our constitution, and as we spread this message it is more important that we look at the ways in which others can come to this understanding worldwide as opposed to the confusion caused by having our young people learn ways which may seem good on the surface, but are actually harmful to them. Additionally, it is better to start a war so that the people who want to be free can and the rest will fall in line assoon as the realize the superiority of our system anyway.

I know that my going to a foriegn country right after high school and then getting a liberal arts education rich in world history and global study confused me to the point that I could see a good Monarch, Communism, Anarchy, even a benevolent dictatorship or philosopher king could actually be a positive thing as well as a Republic or Democracy in some cases. I could even see why Democracy could bring about very terrible results. Of course, I also learned the word "ethnocentricity" and upset a lot of folk.

Anyway, I wouldn't recommend learning any other system of government except to criticize it by spouting the conventional wisdom that touts it's weaknesses to a young personhere. Of course, those to those that would do it anyway, I do give a hearty "Bravo"!

:)

Hi Oz. On my hard drive, for ready reference, I keep various documents including the Australian Constitution and the Constitution of the USA.
The following preamble outlines the purpose of establishing the US constitution:

Preamble

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As with the Australian constitution, the US consitution makes allowance for changes (ammendments) via a process of referendum.

California's constitution is fairly easy to amend and as a consequence it has all sorts of things in it that don't really belong in a constitution, e.g. tax-assessment rules. It also has nostrum notions like "privacy rights" which maturer reflectionmight have indicated were a congeries of several distinct kinds of right, but which no-one is now willing to distinguish in the constitution. The California constituion is so big hardly anyone ever reads it, whereas people quite often do read the U.S. constitution. Of course, there are parts of the U.S. constitution not in the constitutional document, e.g. the President's cabinet and privacy rights over-riding the right to life and the right of localities to suppress antisocial behavior. The U.S. Constitution needs re-stating, and then reform. As for countries not currently democratic, what they need for democracy is not a new constitution but minimal changes in their current constitutions, so there can be maximum continuity: democracy is not the only criterion people use in judging legitimacy.

And you still live there?!?
I assume that you don't buy that crap (sorry for the pun).

"simulated copulation - spreads erotic child abuse"

Are you from one of those wierd sects that belives that you'll go blind too? (mind you I do need glasses now, :-))

It is a matter of fact that erotic child abuse has increased since the 1960s(no, it's not just a matter of better records). It is also a matter of fact that the proportion of gays - i.e. sexual inverts habitually engaging in simulated copulation - in the population has gone up in the same period. It is reasonable to suppose that there is some connection. Whether I think there is a connection is not the point: it is whether the legislature of some place so thinks; it is not a matter for the courts. But in fact the U.S. Supreme Court has recently over-ridden the decisions of several state legislatures.

i.e. sexual inverts habitually engaging in simulated copulation - in the population has gone up in the same period. It is reasonable to suppose that there is some connection.

"i.e. sexual inverts habitually engaging in simulated copulation - in the population has gone up in the same period. It is reasonable to suppose that there is some connection."

Could this not be due to tha fact that the entire world's population has increased? What are the proportions of increase compared to the population increase?

I think these proportions you have noted are extremely inaccurate. It wasn't too long ago that someone who was gay would not admit it due to publice unacceptance and general peer pressure. Now, it is almost trendy to be gay, I'm sure many people who wouldn't have admitted it before are now "coming out of the closet" due to public acceptance.

Your post make me think that you are extremely insecure andquite bothered by the gay community (I assume we are speaking of gay as including gay men and gay women).

Let me see if I understand your point correctly.
Masturbation increases the possibility of 'becoming' gay?

I am not gey but have had many gay friends, male and female as well as knowing a hemaphrodite (bit of both but nothing specific to be male or female). Your post makes me realize (if I understood it right) that there are still many quite ignorant people with regards to homosexuality. I would guarantee that there are many people you know, if not good friends who are gay. The reasno they are not comfotable with it is due t o people like yourself who see homosexuality as a disease or 'learned' behavior. This is of course so far from the truth that it boggles my mind! People don't BECOME gay, they either are or are not. People develop an understanding of their own sexuality during their puberty years. Some aren't too sure how to feel until much later in life because they are taught it is wrong, until they finally realize they like people of the same sex.

This is not an issue that is to be resolved, it is a reality of life.

There is some confusion of concepts here. A gay is a sexual invert who is willing to engage in mutual masturbation with a member of the same sex. Not all sexual inverts are gay - take a look at www.couragerc.net - and I know sexual inverts who are gay and some who are not. One of each used to gang up on me regarding economics while fuming to me about the other's attitude to inversion. Sexual inverts are nowadays much more likely to choose gayness than before the 1960s; I think that that is pretty obvious. Also, erotic abuse of chilfren is far commoner. Now, if the legislature of New Guernsey judges that the increased incidence of gayness is somehow causing the increased abuse, which some knowledge of behavioral psychology might indicate, then surely the legislature is entitled to forbid simulated copulation in New Guernsey without a higher-level court having much interest in the matter. The legislature might be wrong, but that is not a legitimate matter for a court to decide.

"Sexual inverts are nowadays much more likely to choose gayness than before the 1960s; I think that that is pretty obvious. Also, erotic abuse of chilfren is far commoner."

How can you or anyone else compare sexual activity in 2003 with sexual activity in the 60's?

In 1960, sexuality was kept in the closet (whether gay or straight) it was NOT a topic of common discussion nor was it a topic of any RELEVANT studies.

Wake up, this is 2003. Sexuality is no longer repressed in most of the world (with exceptions of some states) and is finally being researched and peoples individual opinions are no longer tarnished with the fear of inacceptance or physical repercussions.

this converstation, no matter how you put it, is not an explanation of the Constitution (as was the topic I started)and has turned into a really wierd and somewhat ignorant thought process.

I think that the government allowing a consentual circle jerk among friends or even strangers has nothing whatsoever todo with people being allowed to take a dump in the middle of Main street. I think that consentual, mutual masturbation (with women of course)should be a public display!

Whatever OzMedia thinks the law concerning mutual masturbation should be, surely the question is for legislatures. It is not naturally a constitutional affair for courts to over-rule legislatures on. Weird developments of the concept of privacy in U.S. constitutional law, starting with Griswold vs Connecticut, have made it so.
Let us go back a few years. NC had a statute forbidding mutual masturbation (mis-called "sodomy") by people of the same sex. The federal judiciary, in my opinion rightly, over-ruled the statute on the basis of sexual equality. So the NC legislature changed the statute: buggar a man, go to prison; buggar a woman, go to prison. In the early 1990s the statute came before the U.S. Supreme Court and was upheld: there was no sexual discrimination involved. That is how the constitutional law should have stayed, but homophobes in Texas made a sex-discriminatory statute and this was opposed in the courts by homosexualists; no-one seems to have pointed out the decision regarding NC. The federal courts should have invalidated the Texan statute on the same basis as they had invalidated the earlier NC law, but instead they came out with a lot of homosexualist nonsense and now the newer NC statute, too, is apparently unconstitutional.

You really expose yourself for what you are: a sick, perverted, deviate. You even resort to making up your own dictionary:

Sodomy: anal intercourse committed by a man with another man or a woman.
Buggery: anal intercourse between a man and another man, a woman, or an animal.
Homosexualism: no such word exists.
The opposite to homophobia would obviously be homophilia. Whilst this term does not exist either, "homophile" is listed as a rare word for "homosexual."

It is a well-known fact that repressed sexuality can manifest in all kinds of bizarre ideas and behaviour.

Surely Oz you would agree that anyone with a strong constitution would be able to restrain their natural urges, be it sexual release or defecation, until they reached an appropriately private place.

I do not like to call buggary "sodomy" because the Bible - Ez 16:49-50 - tells us that God destroyed Sodom for quite another sin, something like libertarianism, perhaps.

I did not invent the word "homosexualism"; it refers to the same thing as homophobia, except on the other side. Homosexualism and homophobia, as I explain in my book Albatross 0-595-19418-4, are two sides of the same counterfeit coin, but both are real phenomena.

"Homosexualism and homophobia, as I explain in my book Albatross 0-595-19418-4, are two sides of the same counterfeit coin, but both are real phenomena."
Real phenomena as described and outlined by YOUR religion. Unfortunately I can't accept this as part of the English language as it is defined by religion. I don't want to start a religious discussion nor will I even attempt to belittle you or anyone for faith and beliefs but the bible can't be seen as a language resource, sorry.

As for poeple doing it in the streets, have you been living under a rock or do you just close your eyes. This IS a reality, not a "what if you saw" statement. It doesn't bother me if two people have sex at a bus stop (as long as I'm invited).

My religion has nothing to do with it: there does in fact exist homophobia in the world; there does in fact exist homosexualism. Every year in SF we have a big homosexualist demonstration which used to be called "Gay Pride", although it's now been broadened to GLBTQQ Pride or something like that; the mayor officiates at gay weddings; etc. Every weekend in London the Skinheads display homophobia by waiting outside gay pubs and bashing people who come out of them; a gay Pakistani Hindu DJ in SF is scared stiff that he is going to be repatriated and repeatedly beaten in his homeland. Anyone of any religion can perceive these realities.
And I am not using the Bible for a definition of "Sodomy", merely refusing to use the word because its common use misrepresents the Bible.

I'm gettnig tired of this thread, not that you are boring me but it just gets stale after a while.
If you live in SF, you should be accustomed to this by now. Just staying in Carmel (sp?) breifly showed me that.

In Vancouver there stil is a gaypride parade every year, I find it quite entertaining actually, very colorful and uninhibited people.

Your reference to the punks at the square is a little exaggerated though, I've lived back and forth between London, Vancouver and California for34 years and the British punks are pretty overrated. They are mainly dressing up for the toursists these days and charging 50P for a photo with them. They USED to be reaal S-t disturbers but the modern day punks in London are pretty much there for show/shock value and don't really have a 'gang' mentality, however gay bashing does happen just about everywhere in some form. The punks just aren't like they were during the years of Mods vs Rockers vs Teddy Boys.

As for gay bashing, it was a bigger problem in Vancouver in the early 80's when coming out was new and accepted (by some). They actually found that the string of gay bashing in Vancouver was from several US Marines in the city for a few weeks, they were caught and dealt with by their authorities (court marshall or whatever they do now).

As for religion,
FIRST: I don't even want to go there because it is an offense/defence discussion and I don't think it is appropriate here.

SECOND: I don't like to discuss things I amnot qualified to offer opinion on. I've never been a big religious follower and have many doubts towards some religious statements,ergo, I will pass.

Thanks for the discussion, lets simply agree to disagree.
Talk to you soon I'm sure.
OM